1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 550/2009 and 761/2009 have been filedagainst a common judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5/02/2009 passed by
Special Judge (SC/ST), Chhatarpur (MP) in Sessions Trial No. 160/2007. Hence, these two appeals are decided by the common judgment. The
accused persons were tried for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act.  The trial Court held the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and awarded rigorous
imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs.1000/-, with default stipulation RI for six months each.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that there was previous enmity between the present appellants and deceased Chhota Prajapati on account of
measurement of agricultural land and patta over that land. The land belonging to accused Hanuman Yadav and co-accused Bhaiya Ram Yadav
(died during trial and case against him has already been abated) are just adjacent to the land of deceased and they have encroached some part of the
land of deceased and his father Surja illegally.  On the application of deceased, Revenue Officers visited the land of the deceased before one day
of incident on 17/06/2007 and measured the land and found the illegal possession of accused on some part of the land of deceased. After this visit,
accused stubbed the stone on which measurement was marked and thrown it. When deceased intervened them, accused Shivpal threatened him
and said to go away. On 18/06/2007 at about 7:00 AM when deceased Chhota Prajapati was going to attend the Court at Londi, in the mid-way,
near the nala his son Sitaram (PW-2) heard hue and cry of Chhota Prajapati. When Sitaram (PW-2) came over there he saw that
appellants/accused Shivpal Yadav armed with spear (sharp edged weapon), Gokul armed with axe, Bhaiya Ram Yadav armed with lathi, Brindawan
@ Kakua and Hanuman both armed with lathis were assaulting the deceased. They all were saying that Chhota may not be alive. Sitaram raised
an alarm on which his sister Ramdevi (PW-4) also came there and seen the incident. She also made hue and cry on which the accused ran
away from the spot. Hearing the cry, wife of deceased Smt. Rambai also came on the spot. Due to injuries caused by the appellants/accused on
head, back, hands and abdomen deceased died on the spot. Report of the incident was made on which crime no. 39/2007 was registered. During
investigation, spear (ballam) was seized at the instance of appellant/accused Shivpal, axe was seized from Gokul and lathis were seized at the instance
of Bhaiya Ram, Hanuman and Brindawan @ Kakua. Dr. T.S. Sagariya (PW-7) has performed the autopsy and as per medical evidence cause of
death was hemorrhage shock due to rupture of vital organ, left lung and duration of death was within 24-36 hours since the postmortem examination.
Police has registered the offence against the appellant and after investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC who committed the
case before the Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur.
3. The trial Court, during the trial has framed charges for commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (v)
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused person. They abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. As many as 9 prosecution
witnesses were examined by the prosecution. After completion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for commission of offence
and sentenced them as mentioned above.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that trial Court has committed illegality in recording and convicting the appellants as the evidence was not
marshaled properly. It is further submitted that there are many contradictions and omissions in the version of the prosecution witnesses. The
convictions is mainly based on the statement of Sitaram (PW-2) son of deceased and Ku. Ram Devi (PW-4) daughter of deceased but both the
witnesses are not real witnesses but they are chance witnesses and their statements also do not corroborate the statement of Dr. T.C. Sagariya (PW-
7) who conducted the postmortem. It is submitted that prosecution has not established that who caused the fatal blow therefore, trial court has
committed mistake in recording the conviction. Under such circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants pray for setting aside the conviction and
sentence against the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the order of conviction and sentence and said that the conviction and sentence is proper.
6. Prosecution has examined to prove his case by examining as manyas 9 witnesses while defence has examined 1 witness in his favour. Dr. T.C.
Sagariya (PW-7) has deposed that he was posted in PHC Chandla as Medical Officer. On 19/06/2007 in the morning alongwith companion namely
Dr. S.P. Shakyawar (PW-7) he has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Chhota sent by the police station Sarwai. On external
examination the following injuries were found on the body of Chota:-
“1. Stab wound 1x1x5 cm just above the left elbow posteriorly, obliquely upward. Margins are inverted clear cut.
2. Stab wound 1x0.5x4 cm on right lower leg/ 1/3rd part thereto medially margins are clear cut which is straight forward to backward. Both injuries
are caused by sharp and pointed object.
3. Lacerated wound 4 x 1.5 x 2 cm on left occipital region of head obliquely margins are irregular.
4. Contusion 25x10 cm on whole left upper arm latero-posterior blueish colour.
5. Contusion 10x8 right on lower leg fronto medial lower half reddish blue in colour.
6. Contusion 10x9 cm on left wrist spreaded up to palm, reddish blue in colour.
7. Contusion 25x10 cm on left lower leg fronto lateral, reddish blueish in colour.
8. Contusion 33x20 cm over the left side of backbone scapular region and below and above it reddish blue in colour.â€
Doctor has deposed that injury nos. 3 to 8 were caused by hard and blunt object and were antemortem in nature. 7th and 8th ribs vertebral end of
left side of lung were fractured and lung was also ruptured.  In his opinion the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to rupture of vital
organ left lung. The duration of death was within 24 to 36 hours since postmortem examination. On the basis of postmortem report (Exhibit P/26)
it is crystal clear that death of Chhota was homicidal in nature.
7. Prosecution has examined eye witnesses as well as witnesses who on shouting of eye witnesses reached on the spot after the incident.  The
witnesses who were examined are Sitaram (PW-2) who is son and Ku. Ram Devi (PW-4) who is daughter of deceased Chhota. Sitaram (PW-2)
has stated that one day prior to the death, his father got demarcated his land. On the fateful day his father was going in the morning around 6-7
O’clock to Londi for court appearance. Soon after behind his father he also went to ease towards well of pardeshi. He heard shouting of his
father “save me, they are killing meâ€. Hearing this he rushed to the field of Rambalak and saw that accused Shivpal armed with spear (ballam),
Gokul armed with axe, Bhaiya Ram, Kakku @ Brindawan and Hanuman armed with lathis were assaulting his father. Seeing this incident he also
shouted “save, they are killing my fatherâ€. Hearing the shout, her sister Ku. Ram Devi has also rushed to the spot where both were started
shouting. Hearing the shout, their mother Raja Bai also reached on the spot. Seeing them, all the accused fled away from the place of incident.
Blood was oozing out from the head and leg of his father. At that time his father was alive. His father has also told them that Shivpal, Gokul,
Bhaiya Ram, Kakku @ Brindawan and Hanuman have caused injuries to him.
8. The above testimony of Sitaram (PW-2) is corroborated by another eye witness Ku. Ram Devi (PW-4) who has deposed that on the date of
incident her father was going for court appearance to Londi. Behind her father, his brother Sitaram also went for the nature’s call. When she
heard shout of her brother, she rushed towards her brother and at the distance of five lathis near nala she saw that accused Shivpal armed with spear,
Gokul armed with axe, Bhaiya Ram, Kakku @ Brindawan and Hanuman armed with lathis were beating her father and they were saying “kill
himâ€. Seeing the incident she and her brother Sitaram started shouting. On hearing their shout, her mother also rushed to the spot. At that
time, her father was alive. Blood was oozing out from the head, legs and hands of her father. Her father told her mother that Shivpal, Gokul,
Bhaiya Ram, Kakku @ Brindawan and Hanuman have caused injuries to him. Her grandfather Surja also reached to the spot and then went to
police station Sarwai for lodging the FIR.
9. The brother of deceased namely Bhaiyalal (PW-3) has been examined who has deposed that deceased Chhota was his brother who is not alive.Â
In the month of Ashad, he has gone for digging earth from the pond, there he came to know that his brother is killed. He rushed to the field of
Rambalak there he saw that dead body of his brother lying and Ram Devi, Sitaram and deceased’s wife were there. They told that accused
Gokul by axe, Deshraj by spear, Bhaiya Ram, Kakku @ Brindawan and Hanuman by lathis have beaten Chhota and after beating they have fled
away from the spot. Similarly Surja (PW-1), father of deceased who reached at the spot soon after the incident has stated that in the noon there
was information that Chhota has been killed who is lying in the field of Rambalak. He reached at the spot after getting this information. At that
place Sitaram was present who told him that accused Shivpal, Gokul, Bhaiya Ram, Kakku @ Brindawan and Hanuman have killed Chhota and just
fled away from the spot. Sitaram also told him that Shivpal was armed with spear, Gokul with axe and rest of the accused were armed with
lathis. When he reached on the spot, he saw that Chhota was lying in the field of Rambalak and blood was oozing out from the various parts of the
body like head, legs and hands and then he died. Surja (PW-1) has stated that he has gone for lodging the FIR in police station Sarwai and Exhibit
P/1 was lodged by him.
10. Head Constable Udayraj Singh (PW-8) has stated that on 18/06/2007 he was posted as HCM in police station Sarwai where Surja has lodged a
report that due to land dispute accused have killed his son. On this information given by Surja, crime no. 39/07 under section 147,
148, 149, 302 of IPC and under section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide Exhibit P/1 was written. After registering the FIR,
the information was sent to the SDOP.  H.R.P. Choudhary (PW-9) has deposed that on 18/06/2007 he was posted as SDOP. After receiving
the case diary from police station Sarwai of crime no. 39/07 he started the investigation and reached on the spot. Notice vide Exhibit P/27 was
issued and in the presence of panch witness, panchnama of dead body of Chhota was prepared and then dead body was sent for postmortem. Site
map of the place of incident (Exhibit P/30) was prepared at the instance of Surja (PW-1). Evidence of witnesses were recorded and on 1/07/2007
one lathi from accused Hanuman, one spear from accused Shivpal Yadav and one lathi from accused Brindawan @ Kakua were seized on the basis
of memorandum statement Exhibits P/8, P/7 and P/11 and seizure memo was prepared. The seized articles were sent to FSL for examination vide
Exhibit P/32. After the examination, FSL has sent the report vide Exhibit P/33.
11. On the cumulative appreciation of the evidence produced by the prosecution, prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that
there are two eye witnesses beside other witnesses and other evidence to corroborate the testimony of eye witnesses of the incident.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant have vehemently argued that all the witnesses are from the deceased family i.e. from one family who are
related to each other therefore, they are interested and their evidence cannot be believed.  It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in
the catena of judgment that mere relation or witnesses belonging to one family are not the reason for discarding their testimony, if they are reliable and
trustworthy. Similarly so far as the question of interested witness is concerned, of-course, witnesses will be interested but they will be interested for
getting the real culprit convicted not to those who have not inflicted any injury or have not caused the death of their family member or relative.  Â
Here, in this case, after appreciation of evidence, we find that there is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
13. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellants have caused grievous injuries to the deceased on account of
the rivalry over the property dispute due to which he died on the spot and, therefore, there is no reason to accept the appeal filed by them.  The
trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under section 302/34 of the IPC. So far as sentence is concerned, the trial
Court sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment, which is appropriate, therefore, there is no need to discuss any more on the question of sentence.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and re-appreciation of evidence, I do not find any force in the appeals hence, the appeals are dismissed and the
conviction and sentence awarded under Section 302/34 of the IPC is maintained.
Appeal dismissed.
